When you look at strategy games both Turn Based and Real Time there always seems to be the same damn settings and scenarios being used. You know the ones: - About 70 gazillion Star Trek Style Space/ Futuristic Empires (Masters of Orion, - a few billion classic fanatasy type games (Warcraft, Masters of Magic, etc.) - A tonne of historical games that either rip off of Civilization by trying to make a game about all of human history (Rise of Nations, Empire Earth, etc.) or a few that actually centre around specific period of history - it''s usually the middle ages or the age of exploration however (Age of Empires II, Medival Total War) And a while back I was reading how Stainless Steel Studios the guys who created Empire Earth are making ANOTHER similar type game called Rise of the Modern Era or some such. Personally I like historical strategy games way better then Warcraft type, but I''m getting bored of the same settings and topics. So I was pondering why The Cold War isn''t used very much at all (as far as I know of) in games, particularly strategy games. I mean you have Red Alert but that doesn''t very accuartely portray the Cold War I think a game that allowed the player to control a Cold War Nation would be pretty neat you could really do a lot of with diplomacy, espionage, the United Nations and that sort of thing - you could have the threat of nuclear war hanging over your head constantly and the player could choose to be a communist or capitalist nation. The design could even be worked out to make each type of nation play differently. Personally I like the idea because I''m not looking forward to Cilvilzation 8 and Galatic Empires 26. I''m currently working on a bit of a design for a game like this actually hopefully something will come of it.

There''s a post in the "Help Wanted" Forum about a game focused on diplomacy rather than war. (Topic is "mIRC Invitation on programming a unique game", if you''re interested) It seems that a lot of people thought it wasn''t interesting. Personally, I disagree. I think a game that rewarded diplomacy over war (war would still have to be an option, but usually not one you''d prefer) would be a nice change of pace. I''d certainly be interested if it had a nice AI (probably the hardest part) and diplomacy interface (second hardest part).

Anyway, the main point of this reply is that someone brought up focusing on diplomacy rather than war (which is what I think would happen in a game set in the Cold War era) and many posters thought it wasn''t such a great idea (though the more mature posters seemed to like it).

Really. Well actually this game I had in mind wasn''t neccesarily about diplomacy over warfare...I mean I rather like the idea of being able for the game to detriorate into one big 3rd World War scenerio where we have the US and the Soviet Union facing off. And in addition there would probably be a lot of "Vietname/Korean" war type scenerios in this game where US/Soviets invade smaller nations to insure they do not "switch Sides" as such. But definately there would be more diplomacy in this game then normal and the AI would be by far the most difficult part as there would have to be hundreds of minor nations in the game (much like the strategy game Europa Universailis - although I didn''t like EU because I think they went into too much depth with economic systems such as inflation that really made the game more frustrating then fun).

Demonlir - I''m not sure why The Cold War is not used/scripted out very much in games. I tend to agree, most games are just a new title and new graphics but doing the same thing and I think that has to do with Companies know that they actually sell, and the idea works based on previous games on the market of the same type.

quote: Original post by Way Walker
... many posters thought it wasn''t such a great idea (though the more mature posters seemed to like it).

You''re not stating that because someone finds a dislike in the idea posted in that thread that they are immature, are you? Rather ignorant to state someones maturity level based on what they like and dislike, no? I know of a few Doctors and Lawyers that enjoy card games (Magic: The Gathering) and some cartoons, does that make them little children?

~

Turn based might work, but I can''t see the cold war being a setting for a RTS game.

Definately I wasn''t thinking of RTS at all. Actually I think this sort of game might be sellable because the one I had in mind is in SOME ways similar (but I can think of a hell of a lot of differences) to another game Europa Universailis, a very complex (in my mind absurd and overly complex epic strategy game) that came out a year or so ago and I think sold very well (because the company released a sequal rather quickly which tells me people liked it I think IGN even rated it strategy game of the year).

Check out Balance of Power, old game try abandonware sites since it isn''t made anymore. PCGamer also released it on a CD a year or so ago, maybe you can download it.
Basically it sould like what you are talking about. Try Nuke war for a lighter taste on this stuff.

quote: demonlir
Really. Well actually this game I had in mind wasn''t neccesarily about diplomacy over warfare...I mean I rather like the idea of being able for the game to detriorate into one big 3rd World War scenerio where we have the US and the Soviet Union facing off.

The thing is, the term "cold war" means that there was no actual fighting. If it had degenerated into WWIII then it would have ceased to have been a "cold war". So, if you want the Cold War feel, you need to focus on diplomacy and espionage. It''s all about paranoia. In a traditional war, you know what you''re afraid of, dying. In a cold war, there''s nothing specific you''re afraid of, except maybe the start of WWIII, but you have no idea where or how that''ll be fought. I think maybe a good way to go about it would be to focus on espionage. You lose if WWIII breaks out (Think Wargames "The only winning move is not to play"). You win if... hmm... peace treaty? long-term stalemate? the other side concedes? you join together as one nation? you manage to assassinate the opposing leader/otherwise bring the other nation down into anarchy? you convert the otherside to democracy/communism (depending on which country you started as)? Basically, you win if you can find a long-term solution other than war. I think that''d be interesting if done right.

quote: Zern
You''re not stating that because someone finds a dislike in the idea posted in that thread that they are immature, are you?

Simply, no. In more detail, see below.

quote:
Rather ignorant to state someones maturity level based on what they like and dislike, no? I know of a few Doctors and Lawyers that enjoy card games (Magic: The Gathering) and some cartoons, does that make them little children?

You misunderstand. My thought process wasn''t "They disagree with me, therefore they must be immature" nor "They like something I consider immature, therefore they must be immature". It was more like "Wow, some people here seem really mature and others immature. Hmm... there''s an interesting correlation between maturity and how much they dislike the idea of a non-violent game". All I''m saying is that the more immature the poster seemed, the more they hated the idea of not being able to kill things. The more mature, the more accepting of a non-violent game they were. Note that this would not be contradicted by a mature person liking violent games.

I was basing maturity level mostly on how much of a knee-jerk reaction they produced (did they even think if a non-violent game could be interesting?), how eloquently they stated their position (some posts were little more than "I like to squish things"), etc.

As for Magic: The Gathering and cartoons... I used to enjoy Magic until a card''s value was based on what rule you could break with it rather than how powerful it was within the rules. I still love cartoons. Toon-Disney and Cartoon Network are two of my favorite channels (TLC, Discovery, History Channel, and CNN making up most of the rest). I don''t think that makes someone immature. Also, while there is a strong correlation between maturity and age, I''ve known very mature 7 year olds and very immature 30+ year olds. I''ve also known professionals who aren''t mature, so stating that they''re a doctor or lawyer does not make them mature (though people who have gone to that level of education tend to be more mature).

Okay I realise the term ''Cold War" doesn''t mean an actual war, that would be a "Hot war". But what I mean when I say I want a game set in the "Cold War" period is a game set from the end of WWII onward (it could go past 1991 if there is no "winner" by then). There would definately be a good deal of diplomacy but even I feel a game with just diplomacy might get a little stuffy after a while - also we''d have vietname style wars - the player would want to keep certain minor nations from "switching sides" so an invasion of that smaller country would be possible.

quote: Original post by Demonlir
Okay I realise the term ''Cold War" doesn''t mean an actual war, that would be a "Hot war". But what I mean when I say I want a game set in the "Cold War" period is a game set from the end of WWII onward (it could go past 1991 if there is no "winner" by then). There would definately be a good deal of diplomacy but even I feel a game with just diplomacy might get a little stuffy after a while - also we''d have vietname style wars - the player would want to keep certain minor nations from "switching sides" so an invasion of that smaller country would be possible.

I guess my main point was that if you want that Cold War era feeling, a full blown WWIII is out of the question. Fighting in smaller countries to prevent the domino effect/spread communism (depending on which nation you are) would work. But as soon as the USA and USSR start fighting each other, you''ve lost the atmosphere that I''m assuming you''re trying to create. I guess part of it depends on whether you want to make an RTS in an ignored setting or try to actually create the feeling of the Cold War era.